ESTUDIO COMPARATIVO ENTRE LA LEY

Teachers have faced a changing landscape around teaching of writing since the 70s. There seems a considerable amount of confusion in the wider perspective of theorising the teaching of writing regarding understanding the dimensions of the writing processes. In terms of pedagogy, cognitive model research forms the basis of current conceptions of process writing (Graves, 2003). However, the form of process writing pedagogy the teacher was exposed to influences the way they engage with students in teaching of writing. Some teachers focused on the cycle process and others were more flexible through generating ideas and revising, editing, and publishing them (Flower & Hayes, 1981). Layered onto the writing processes was the current view of writing development that cannot be a separate from student involvement as partners in the writing process. As a result, teachers faced challenges in implementing the act of writing, and knowing how to provide formative feedback.

Providing both written and oral formative feedback has been presented in the literature as a challenging practice to teachers. The existing research literature shows that the way writing is taught is positioned differently within different theoretical perspectives that teachers’ hold (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1990; Grossman, Smagorinsky & Valencia, 1999; Poulson & Avramidis, 2004), and that writing lesson practices reflect teachers’ identities in primary classrooms. Teachers’ theoretical orientations are philosophical principles that guide their decision-making. These epistemological beliefs include teachers’ theories about students, curriculum, pedagogy and what their roles should be (Porter, 1989). Yet teachers with similar theoretical orientations may vary in their practice due to curriculum requirements, and social, psychological and immediate school settings. Complying with these external influences, some teachers fall into instructional belief and practices, specifically the traditional and process approaches. The traditional approach emphasises explicit instruction, an error-free written product, and a topic selected and completed with limited independent writing time (Hairston, 1982; Raimes, 1991). Traditionally, the final product is then assessed by the teacher. In contrast, the process approach emphasizes methods of learning, and uses literature and interaction from teacher and peers (Graves; 2003; Myhill & Jones, 2007). This is more attuned to formative assessment processes.

Writing is a complex and dynamic activity carried out in the classroom and has progressed without a single agreed upon model from scholarship that prescribes the most appropriate content of writing within teaching, learning and assessment (Parr, 2013). As a result, Marshall (2004) claims writing as an art without a formal agreed upon technique or recipe that would lead to high quality responses (Sadler, 2009b). Therefore, writing consists of complex and diverse features, which indirectly indicate the quality or representation of ‘good writing’ to teachers. However it is challenging for teachers to list all the characteristics of good writing, so a selection of the most significant criteria is often referenced in the classroom. These feature or properties are referred to success criteria (Sadler, 2009a). There is, however, an ongoing problem in that these fixed criteria can overlook significant features that emerge during the production of a written language. These features include attention to task completion, rather than the more substantive elements of a piece of writing, and student engagement in the writing process itself (Hawe & Parr, 2013; Timperley & Parr, 2009). Hawe et al. (2008) argue that restricting attention to criteria and over-emphasizing its value or features in writing may result in teachers overlooking the students’ message or original contribution during the production and evaluation process.

The significant challenges related to pinning down what constitutes ‘quality’ in writing, and relating that to what constitutes to successful achievement for a student who is learning to write is not an indication that educators should abandon the articulation of goals or successful achievement. However, using goals and standards of reference as sets of pre-determined criteria (Sadler, 2009a) to define students learning progression and success in the writing process is not fully sufficient to facilitate effective learning, especially when progression in learning leads different students through different pathways to successful attainment (Marshall, 2004). Often, as student’s writing develops, teachers and students clarify and establish criteria of success they value in the written work. In New Zealand, teachers do not take on board the full and exclusive externally produced rubrics or success criteria for developing students understanding of the quality of work required. The rubrics and criteria established by the Ministry of Education(Ministry of Education, 2003a, 2006) are often adapted and adjusted by teachers to suit students, and using a range of pedagogical tools, exemplars (Ministry of Education, 2003b) and the nature of writing provide insight to students about the quality of writing required (Parr & Limbrick, 2010). As a result, the tools and methods teachers develop in teaching of writing should serve as a point of reference for required quality, and in making evaluation about students’ written drafts.

However, disparity in student achievement has drawn attention to the teaching of writing, both in New Zealand and internationally (Bangert-Drowns, Hurley & Wilkinson, 2004; Boscolo, 2008; Cutler & Graham, 2008; Flockton, Crooks & White, 2007). While it is still being contested, student achievement has been linked to the quality of teaching of writing, and linked to teacher practice (Hattie, 2009). Feedback that creates opportunities for teacher/student interactions has been highlighted in education literature as helping students progress in their learning of writing (Askew & Lodge, 2000; Carnell, 2000; Sadler, 1989; Torrance & Pryor, 2001; Tunstal & Gipps, 1996). Feedback interaction has been described as sharing ideas, thoughts, and opinions during the writing process (Anderson, 1999).

As indicated by Carnell (2000), effective interaction has reciprocity, spontaneity and collaboration, creating a shared partnership in learning between teacher and learner. Through this process, students are then given more control of their learning, especially decision-making regarding their work, and in this way students become insiders to the feedback process (Sadler, 1989). This is beneficial as students become less reliant on teacher-supplied feedback and become more self-monitoring. Stiggins and Chappuis (2005) claim that a teachers’ instructional task through feedback to students is to take students to “the edge of their capabilities and to encourage growth as an essential part of the assessment process” (p. 13). Significantly, however, in two New Zealand studies (Hawe et al., 2008; Knight, 2003), this style of interaction was found to be absent from practice, specifically student involvement in constructing achievement through forward feedback as described by Tunstall and Gipps (1996).

Studies indicate that teachers demonstrate uneven understanding of formative assessment practices in general, and this uncertainty extends to those used in the teaching of writing in particular. Teachers’ knowledge of quality writing involves the writing process, linguistic functions, understanding student progression, and their pedagogical practice that enable them scaffold students through interaction and strategies (Locke, 2005). Teachers are required to mediate their own interpretations with school interpretations of the new curricula, and the shift in the teaching of writing approaches has had them questioning the most effective approach in teaching of writing. The process, genre and multiliterate (Cazden et al., 1996) approaches exemplify different ideologies and pedagogies over the past decades, and it is evident in the New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 1994; Ministry of Education, 2007b) that the cognitive process in writing (Flower & Hayes, 1989; Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1982), and cognitive theories (Graves, 2003; McCormick, 2003) are now central. In New Zealand the process approach of writing was adopted and prompted the publication Dancing With The Pen (Ministry of Education, 1992). However, there is

still argument among scholars, and agreement on students’ knowledge of different genres of writing is yet to be fully developed. The implementation of English in the New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 1994) has introduced teachers to both text and genre based pedagogies. These changes in the curriculum have created theoretical and pedagogical shifts for New Zealand primary teachers. Dix’s (2012) study explored ten primary teachers writing classrooms, with the range of experience from 2-28 years. Findings revealed teachers had individualistic identities when teaching writing, for some teachers their experience of how children write, other fitted with their particular theoretical beliefs and perceptions of writing, or their limited personal knowledge. Some teachers actively created their own method of teaching of writing to fit the context they were teaching in. Significant finding from this study was that teachers are still grappling with recent political and theoretical shifts. Dix (2012) concludes one of the reason behind the lack of teacher engagement was that teachers were still guided by English as laid out in the 1994 curriculum, which had a genre-based theoretical and pedagogical focus, even after the adoption of a newer and now current curriculum, New Zealand Curriculum for English-medium teaching and learning in years 1-13 (Ministry of Education, 2007b).

Studies have suggested that teachers need professional development to enhance their knowledge in assessment and writing, both at the theoretical level and suited to practice. (Dix, 2012; Dix & Cawkwell, 2011; Locke et al. 2011; Limbrick, Buchanan, Goodwin & Schwarcz, 2005; 2010). Limbrick et al. (2005) reported that teachers lacked confidence in their knowledge on the teaching of writing. Their two- year study of over 20 teachers from low socio-economic area primary schools in New Zealand investigated teachers’ pedagogical and content knowledge of writing. They reported that teachers’ knowledge was enhanced when they were supported, for example teachers in this study worked with literacy leaders to reflect on their own practice and teaching. As a result, teachers were better able to target students’ strengths and needs, and to raise their achievement in writing.

The positive changes brought about by PD, and teachers reflecting on their own practice, support Hattie and Timperley’s (2007) report that there is often little evidence of teachers assessing the effectiveness of their teaching of writing to enhance learning. Teachers in this study identified time constraints that prevented them from establishing the appropriate culture for the classroom community in developing formative assessment practice. Teachers found formative assessment made sense to them, but it was challenging to communicate that sense, as students had to master the dialogic tools and skills required. Like their teachers, students had to experience

Teachers with sound pedagogical content knowledge is significant to providing written feedback that is formative in function. A study by Parr and Timperley (2010) on teachers from six schools revealed teachers ability to provide formative feedback on student writing was related to students’ achievement. It was considered as significant component of the teaching practice that developed students writing. Another important aspect was a commitment by teachers. Parr and Limbrick (2010) in their study identified teachers that were committed to formative assessment practice in their classroom, and who showed greater awareness of student learning needs, were effective teachers of writing. They argue that student achievement in writing was influenced by teachers who exhibited strengths in providing purpose and meaningfulness, as well as being consistent and systematic in their practices.

As studies show, teachers’ beliefs, pedagogical and content knowledge on the teaching of writing, knowledge of their students and their own personal confidence affects their engagement and role in their teaching of writing process, thus influencing the formative feedback practice. New Zealand’s Education Review Office (ERO) (2007) evaluated the effectiveness of teachers assessing student achievement in writing, motivating and engaging students to achieve and the extent of teachers’ subject and pedagogical knowledge in writing across 159 state schools at Year 4 and Year 8 in New Zealand. The findings of the report found that 41% teachers were effective or highly effective and 13% of teachers needed improvement across all aspects of their writing. Based on the report, recommendations were made to focus on both teacher and school wide teaching of writing practice.

Nevertheless, one significant finding has been that all teachers engaged in feedback in the classroom, the only contrast between teachers, and between instances where their feedback is summative or formative, is in their feedback strategies. Additionally, consideration to students’ understanding of the feedback response is an important factor (Zellermayer, 1989), as feedback should ideally be given without confusion and misinterpretation (Richardson et al., 1991). As Huot (2002) notes, students are better able to respond to written feedback when it is transformative and open-ended. A number of research studies have demonstrated that when teaching is centred on students’ targeted needs and informed by evidence from their previous achievements, their overall level of achievement can be enhanced (Buly & Valencia, 2002; Kennedy & Shiel, 2013; McNaughton & Lai, 2009).

Written language is a context in which significant rich data about teachers’ ability to implement theoretically appropriate formative feedback practices can be generated. The relevant literature and the current focus of literacy teaching and learning have been specified in national education policy goals since 1999 (Ministry of

Education, 1999). However, it is significant to find the relationship between teachers’ beliefs in the uptake and enactment of formative assessment and feedback in the writing lesson. This is because in their classrooms, teachers’ beliefs on teaching influence the many ways their expectations, views and learning are visible in their practice.

In the next section I present the theoretical framework that underpins my research and analysis: the prescription for the best practice of formative assessment